Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'occupation', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("retired", "other", "unemploy", "unemploy", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=75.886, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=311]=212, stp[ipn_0]=72.8731).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=67.1938, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=296]=46, stp[ipn_0]=65.9524).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2381

control, N = 1191

treatment, N = 1191

p-value2

age

236

51.30 ± 13.02 (23 - 75)

50.76 ± 13.39 (23 - 75)

51.82 ± 12.69 (28 - 75)

0.532

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

238

0.316

f

194 (82%)

94 (79%)

100 (84%)

m

44 (18%)

25 (21%)

19 (16%)

occupation

238

day_training

6 (2.5%)

2 (1.7%)

4 (3.4%)

full_time

26 (11%)

13 (11%)

13 (11%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (13%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.7%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.5%)

part_time

42 (18%)

23 (19%)

19 (16%)

retired

57 (24%)

26 (22%)

31 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.4%)

4 (3.4%)

4 (3.4%)

shelter

4 (1.7%)

4 (3.4%)

0 (0%)

student

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.7%)

t_and_e

4 (1.7%)

3 (2.5%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

53 (22%)

28 (24%)

25 (21%)

marital

238

0.875

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.7%)

divore

26 (11%)

14 (12%)

12 (10%)

in_relationship

4 (1.7%)

2 (1.7%)

2 (1.7%)

married

71 (30%)

33 (28%)

38 (32%)

none

113 (47%)

58 (49%)

55 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.3%)

2 (1.7%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (8.0%)

10 (8.4%)

9 (7.6%)

edu

238

0.622

bachelor

48 (20%)

20 (17%)

28 (24%)

diploma

40 (17%)

24 (20%)

16 (13%)

hd_ad

6 (2.5%)

4 (3.4%)

2 (1.7%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

16 (6.7%)

9 (7.6%)

7 (5.9%)

primary

20 (8.4%)

9 (7.6%)

11 (9.2%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (10%)

secondary_4_5

65 (27%)

30 (25%)

35 (29%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.5%)

6 (5.0%)

7 (5.9%)

fam_income

238

10001_12000

8 (3.4%)

2 (1.7%)

6 (5.0%)

12001_14000

11 (4.6%)

4 (3.4%)

7 (5.9%)

14001_16000

12 (5.0%)

4 (3.4%)

8 (6.7%)

16001_18000

5 (2.1%)

3 (2.5%)

2 (1.7%)

18001_20000

10 (4.2%)

7 (5.9%)

3 (2.5%)

20001_above

40 (17%)

24 (20%)

16 (13%)

2001_4000

35 (15%)

17 (14%)

18 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (13%)

14 (12%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

21 (8.8%)

12 (10%)

9 (7.6%)

8001_10000

20 (8.4%)

11 (9.2%)

9 (7.6%)

below_2000

45 (19%)

21 (18%)

24 (20%)

medication

238

213 (89%)

106 (89%)

107 (90%)

0.833

onset_duration

236

15.15 ± 10.98 (0 - 63)

14.84 ± 11.30 (0 - 56)

15.47 ± 10.69 (0 - 63)

0.658

Unknown

2

0

2

onset_age

234

36.24 ± 14.75 (-18 - 72)

35.84 ± 13.75 (10 - 72)

36.63 ± 15.74 (-18 - 68)

0.682

Unknown

4

2

2

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2381

control, N = 1191

treatment, N = 1191

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

238

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.08 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

0.456

recovery_stage_b

238

17.93 ± 2.95 (4 - 24)

18.01 ± 3.13 (4 - 24)

17.85 ± 2.77 (9 - 24)

0.677

ras_confidence

238

29.97 ± 5.63 (9 - 45)

29.82 ± 5.76 (9 - 45)

30.13 ± 5.51 (9 - 45)

0.671

ras_willingness

238

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

11.61 ± 2.11 (5 - 15)

11.70 ± 2.18 (3 - 15)

0.763

ras_goal

238

17.40 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

17.23 ± 3.34 (5 - 25)

17.58 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

0.415

ras_reliance

238

13.25 ± 2.87 (4 - 20)

13.16 ± 2.83 (5 - 20)

13.34 ± 2.91 (4 - 20)

0.636

ras_domination

238

9.82 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

10.02 ± 2.44 (3 - 15)

9.62 ± 2.41 (3 - 15)

0.211

symptom

238

30.74 ± 9.96 (14 - 70)

31.36 ± 10.62 (14 - 70)

30.12 ± 9.27 (14 - 56)

0.337

slof_work

238

22.17 ± 4.63 (10 - 30)

22.27 ± 4.36 (12 - 30)

22.08 ± 4.90 (10 - 30)

0.748

slof_relationship

238

25.08 ± 5.76 (9 - 35)

24.68 ± 5.82 (9 - 35)

25.48 ± 5.69 (11 - 35)

0.286

satisfaction

238

20.49 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)

19.90 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)

21.08 ± 7.20 (5 - 35)

0.210

mhc_emotional

238

10.87 ± 3.76 (3 - 19)

10.77 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

10.96 ± 3.76 (3 - 19)

0.705

mhc_social

238

15.33 ± 6.01 (5 - 30)

15.34 ± 6.08 (5 - 30)

15.32 ± 5.96 (5 - 30)

0.974

mhc_psychological

238

21.87 ± 6.88 (6 - 36)

21.84 ± 6.80 (6 - 36)

21.90 ± 6.98 (6 - 36)

0.948

resilisnce

238

16.66 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

16.29 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

17.02 ± 4.68 (6 - 30)

0.214

social_provision

238

13.60 ± 2.78 (5 - 20)

13.24 ± 2.74 (5 - 20)

13.95 ± 2.78 (5 - 20)

0.050

els_value_living

238

17.07 ± 3.17 (5 - 25)

16.88 ± 3.13 (6 - 25)

17.25 ± 3.21 (5 - 25)

0.370

els_life_fulfill

238

12.84 ± 3.37 (4 - 20)

12.50 ± 3.44 (4 - 20)

13.17 ± 3.27 (4 - 20)

0.128

els

238

29.90 ± 6.02 (9 - 45)

29.39 ± 6.05 (11 - 45)

30.42 ± 5.97 (9 - 45)

0.186

social_connect

238

27.05 ± 9.11 (8 - 48)

27.56 ± 9.00 (8 - 48)

26.53 ± 9.23 (8 - 48)

0.382

shs_agency

238

14.45 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

13.97 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

14.92 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

0.149

shs_pathway

238

15.91 ± 4.23 (3 - 24)

15.43 ± 4.36 (3 - 24)

16.39 ± 4.05 (4 - 24)

0.080

shs

238

30.35 ± 8.85 (6 - 48)

29.40 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.30 ± 8.65 (7 - 48)

0.098

esteem

238

12.76 ± 1.68 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.75 (9 - 20)

12.71 ± 1.62 (10 - 20)

0.701

mlq_search

238

14.79 ± 3.50 (3 - 21)

14.49 ± 3.55 (3 - 21)

15.09 ± 3.43 (3 - 21)

0.182

mlq_presence

238

13.50 ± 4.27 (3 - 21)

13.31 ± 4.17 (3 - 21)

13.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 21)

0.496

mlq

238

28.29 ± 6.97 (6 - 42)

27.80 ± 6.95 (6 - 42)

28.78 ± 7.00 (6 - 42)

0.278

empower

238

19.26 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

19.00 ± 4.46 (6 - 30)

19.51 ± 4.49 (6 - 30)

0.377

ismi_resistance

238

14.39 ± 2.63 (5 - 20)

14.42 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

0.844

ismi_discrimation

238

11.75 ± 3.07 (5 - 20)

11.76 ± 3.03 (5 - 20)

11.74 ± 3.11 (5 - 20)

0.966

sss_affective

238

10.49 ± 3.70 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.57 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

0.727

sss_behavior

238

10.14 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

10.22 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

10.07 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

0.759

sss_cognitive

238

8.90 ± 3.86 (3 - 18)

8.74 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

9.07 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)

0.514

sss

238

29.53 ± 10.70 (9 - 54)

29.36 ± 10.59 (9 - 54)

29.71 ± 10.85 (9 - 54)

0.804

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.111

2.98, 3.42

group

control

treatment

-0.118

0.157

-0.426, 0.190

0.454

time_point

1st

2nd

0.050

0.150

-0.244, 0.344

0.738

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.292

0.213

-0.125, 0.710

0.172

Pseudo R square

0.009

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.0

0.272

17.5, 18.5

group

control

treatment

-0.160

0.385

-0.915, 0.596

0.679

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.188

0.285

-0.747, 0.371

0.510

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.840

0.406

0.045, 1.64

0.040

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.8

0.522

28.8, 30.8

group

control

treatment

0.311

0.739

-1.14, 1.76

0.674

time_point

1st

2nd

0.645

0.483

-0.301, 1.59

0.183

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.33

0.687

-0.021, 2.67

0.056

Pseudo R square

0.020

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.194

11.2, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.084

0.274

-0.453, 0.622

0.760

time_point

1st

2nd

0.089

0.210

-0.323, 0.500

0.673

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.292

0.299

-0.294, 0.877

0.330

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.306

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.353

0.432

-0.494, 1.20

0.415

time_point

1st

2nd

0.252

0.305

-0.347, 0.850

0.411

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.605

0.435

-0.247, 1.46

0.166

Pseudo R square

0.015

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.2

0.269

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.176

0.380

-0.569, 0.922

0.643

time_point

1st

2nd

0.309

0.255

-0.190, 0.808

0.226

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.510

0.362

-0.200, 1.22

0.161

Pseudo R square

0.014

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.0

0.221

9.58, 10.5

group

control

treatment

-0.395

0.313

-1.01, 0.218

0.208

time_point

1st

2nd

0.043

0.255

-0.457, 0.543

0.867

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.817

0.363

0.105, 1.53

0.026

Pseudo R square

0.015

symptom

(Intercept)

31.4

0.908

29.6, 33.1

group

control

treatment

-1.24

1.284

-3.76, 1.27

0.334

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.37

0.797

-2.94, 0.191

0.087

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.005

1.135

-2.23, 2.22

0.996

Pseudo R square

0.008

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.3

0.421

21.4, 23.1

group

control

treatment

-0.193

0.595

-1.36, 0.974

0.746

time_point

1st

2nd

0.279

0.410

-0.525, 1.08

0.497

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.452

0.584

-0.693, 1.60

0.440

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.7

0.526

23.6, 25.7

group

control

treatment

0.798

0.744

-0.660, 2.26

0.284

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.067

0.515

-1.08, 0.943

0.897

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.743

0.734

-0.695, 2.18

0.313

Pseudo R square

0.010

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.9

0.662

18.6, 21.2

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.937

-0.660, 3.01

0.210

time_point

1st

2nd

0.909

0.623

-0.312, 2.13

0.146

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.274

0.887

-1.46, 2.01

0.757

Pseudo R square

0.013

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.8

0.343

10.1, 11.4

group

control

treatment

0.185

0.485

-0.765, 1.13

0.703

time_point

1st

2nd

0.427

0.299

-0.160, 1.01

0.156

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.162

0.426

-0.997, 0.673

0.704

Pseudo R square

0.002

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.3

0.562

14.2, 16.4

group

control

treatment

-0.025

0.794

-1.58, 1.53

0.975

time_point

1st

2nd

0.662

0.509

-0.336, 1.66

0.195

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.013

0.725

-1.43, 1.41

0.986

Pseudo R square

0.003

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.8

0.647

20.6, 23.1

group

control

treatment

0.059

0.916

-1.74, 1.85

0.949

time_point

1st

2nd

1.10

0.591

-0.062, 2.25

0.065

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.386

0.841

-2.04, 1.26

0.647

Pseudo R square

0.004

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.403

15.5, 17.1

group

control

treatment

0.723

0.569

-0.394, 1.84

0.205

time_point

1st

2nd

0.850

0.412

0.043, 1.66

0.041

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.646

0.586

-0.503, 1.80

0.272

Pseudo R square

0.029

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.260

12.7, 13.8

group

control

treatment

0.706

0.368

-0.016, 1.43

0.056

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.148

0.262

-0.662, 0.366

0.573

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.470

0.373

-0.261, 1.20

0.209

Pseudo R square

0.025

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.9

0.293

16.3, 17.5

group

control

treatment

0.370

0.415

-0.444, 1.18

0.374

time_point

1st

2nd

0.351

0.290

-0.217, 0.918

0.227

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.313

0.412

-0.495, 1.12

0.449

Pseudo R square

0.012

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.5

0.306

11.9, 13.1

group

control

treatment

0.664

0.433

-0.185, 1.51

0.126

time_point

1st

2nd

0.254

0.283

-0.300, 0.808

0.370

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.301

0.402

-0.487, 1.09

0.455

Pseudo R square

0.017

els

(Intercept)

29.4

0.556

28.3, 30.5

group

control

treatment

1.03

0.786

-0.506, 2.57

0.189

time_point

1st

2nd

0.626

0.495

-0.344, 1.60

0.208

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.592

0.704

-0.789, 1.97

0.402

Pseudo R square

0.016

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.6

0.847

25.9, 29.2

group

control

treatment

-1.03

1.198

-3.38, 1.31

0.389

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.140

0.735

-1.58, 1.30

0.849

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.85

1.046

-4.90, -0.802

0.007

Pseudo R square

0.024

shs_agency

(Intercept)

14.0

0.465

13.1, 14.9

group

control

treatment

0.941

0.657

-0.347, 2.23

0.153

time_point

1st

2nd

0.433

0.401

-0.354, 1.22

0.283

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.367

0.571

-0.753, 1.49

0.521

Pseudo R square

0.015

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.4

0.378

14.7, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.958

0.535

-0.091, 2.01

0.075

time_point

1st

2nd

0.546

0.354

-0.147, 1.24

0.125

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.271

0.504

-0.716, 1.26

0.591

Pseudo R square

0.022

shs

(Intercept)

29.4

0.805

27.8, 31.0

group

control

treatment

1.90

1.138

-0.331, 4.13

0.096

time_point

1st

2nd

0.981

0.695

-0.380, 2.34

0.160

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.628

0.989

-1.31, 2.57

0.526

Pseudo R square

0.020

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.147

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.084

0.208

-0.491, 0.323

0.686

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.147

0.189

-0.517, 0.222

0.436

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.105

0.269

-0.421, 0.631

0.696

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.5

0.317

13.9, 15.1

group

control

treatment

0.605

0.448

-0.274, 1.48

0.178

time_point

1st

2nd

0.868

0.359

0.165, 1.57

0.017

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.777

0.511

-1.78, 0.225

0.130

Pseudo R square

0.009

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.385

12.6, 14.1

group

control

treatment

0.378

0.545

-0.690, 1.45

0.488

time_point

1st

2nd

0.926

0.404

0.133, 1.72

0.023

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.130

0.575

-1.26, 0.998

0.821

Pseudo R square

0.011

mlq

(Intercept)

27.8

0.638

26.5, 29.0

group

control

treatment

0.983

0.902

-0.785, 2.75

0.277

time_point

1st

2nd

1.80

0.679

0.466, 3.13

0.009

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.900

0.966

-2.79, 0.994

0.353

Pseudo R square

0.012

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.414

18.2, 19.8

group

control

treatment

0.513

0.586

-0.636, 1.66

0.382

time_point

1st

2nd

0.943

0.399

0.160, 1.73

0.020

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.312

0.568

-1.43, 0.802

0.584

Pseudo R square

0.009

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.234

14.0, 14.9

group

control

treatment

-0.067

0.331

-0.716, 0.582

0.839

time_point

1st

2nd

0.397

0.281

-0.154, 0.947

0.160

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.483

0.400

-0.301, 1.27

0.229

Pseudo R square

0.017

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.282

11.2, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.017

0.399

-0.798, 0.764

0.966

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.534

0.332

-1.19, 0.117

0.110

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.556

0.473

-1.48, 0.371

0.241

Pseudo R square

0.019

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.338

9.74, 11.1

group

control

treatment

0.168

0.478

-0.770, 1.11

0.726

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.485

0.320

-1.11, 0.142

0.132

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.623

0.456

-1.52, 0.270

0.173

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.344

9.54, 10.9

group

control

treatment

-0.151

0.486

-1.10, 0.802

0.756

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.719

0.317

-1.34, -0.098

0.025

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.048

0.451

-0.932, 0.835

0.915

Pseudo R square

0.010

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.74

0.344

8.07, 9.41

group

control

treatment

0.328

0.487

-0.626, 1.28

0.501

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.561

0.319

-1.19, 0.064

0.080

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.555

0.454

-1.44, 0.334

0.223

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss

(Intercept)

29.4

0.967

27.5, 31.3

group

control

treatment

0.345

1.368

-2.34, 3.03

0.801

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.72

0.820

-3.33, -0.117

0.037

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.19

1.167

-3.48, 1.09

0.308

Pseudo R square

0.012

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.98, 3.42], t(372) = 28.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.19], t(372) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.34], t(372) = 0.33, p = 0.738; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.71], t(372) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.64e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.01 (95% CI [17.47, 18.54], t(372) = 66.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.60], t(372) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.37], t(372) = -0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.04, 1.64], t(372) = 2.07, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [0.02, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.82 (95% CI [28.79, 30.84], t(372) = 57.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.76], t(372) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.59], t(372) = 1.34, p = 0.181; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.33, 95% CI [-0.02, 2.67], t(372) = 1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-3.68e-03, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.61 (95% CI [11.23, 11.99], t(372) = 59.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.62], t(372) = 0.31, p = 0.759; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.50], t(372) = 0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.88], t(372) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.23 (95% CI [16.63, 17.83], t(372) = 56.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.20], t(372) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.85], t(372) = 0.82, p = 0.410; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.46], t(372) = 1.39, p = 0.164; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.16 (95% CI [12.63, 13.69], t(372) = 48.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.92], t(372) = 0.46, p = 0.642; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.81], t(372) = 1.22, p = 0.224; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.22], t(372) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.02 (95% CI [9.58, 10.45], t(372) = 45.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.22], t(372) = -1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.54], t(372) = 0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [0.11, 1.53], t(372) = 2.25, p = 0.024; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.04, 0.63])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.36 (95% CI [29.58, 33.14], t(372) = 34.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-3.76, 1.27], t(372) = -0.97, p = 0.333; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-2.94, 0.19], t(372) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -5.24e-03, 95% CI [-2.23, 2.22], t(372) = -4.62e-03, p = 0.996; Std. beta = -5.37e-04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.27 (95% CI [21.44, 23.09], t(372) = 52.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.97], t(372) = -0.32, p = 0.745; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.08], t(372) = 0.68, p = 0.496; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.60], t(372) = 0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.68 (95% CI [23.65, 25.71], t(372) = 46.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.26], t(372) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.94], t(372) = -0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.18], t(372) = 1.01, p = 0.311; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.90 (95% CI [18.60, 21.20], t(372) = 30.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 3.01], t(372) = 1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.31, 2.13], t(372) = 1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.01], t(372) = 0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.77 (95% CI [10.10, 11.44], t(372) = 31.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.13], t(372) = 0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.01], t(372) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.67], t(372) = -0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.34 (95% CI [14.24, 16.45], t(372) = 27.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.53], t(372) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -4.20e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.66], t(372) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.41], t(372) = -0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = -2.13e-03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.84 (95% CI [20.57, 23.11], t(372) = 33.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.85], t(372) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 8.46e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 2.25], t(372) = 1.86, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-8.87e-03, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.26], t(372) = -0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.29 (95% CI [15.50, 17.08], t(372) = 40.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.84], t(372) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [0.04, 1.66], t(372) = 2.06, p = 0.039; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [9.70e-03, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.80], t(372) = 1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [12.73, 13.75], t(372) = 50.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.43], t(372) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-5.43e-03, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.37], t(372) = -0.56, p = 0.572; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.20], t(372) = 1.26, p = 0.208; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.88 (95% CI [16.31, 17.46], t(372) = 57.53, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.18], t(372) = 0.89, p = 0.373; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.92], t(372) = 1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.12], t(372) = 0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.50 (95% CI [11.90, 13.10], t(372) = 40.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.51], t(372) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.81], t(372) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.09], t(372) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.39 (95% CI [28.30, 30.48], t(372) = 52.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.57], t(372) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.60], t(372) = 1.26, p = 0.206; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.97], t(372) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.56 (95% CI [25.90, 29.22], t(372) = 32.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.31], t(372) = -0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.30], t(372) = -0.19, p = 0.849; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.85, 95% CI [-4.90, -0.80], t(372) = -2.73, p = 0.006; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.52, -0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [13.06, 14.89], t(372) = 30.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.23], t(372) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.22], t(372) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.49], t(372) = 0.64, p = 0.521; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.43 (95% CI [14.69, 16.17], t(372) = 40.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.01], t(372) = 1.79, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.24], t(372) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.26], t(372) = 0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.40 (95% CI [27.83, 30.98], t(372) = 36.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-0.33, 4.13], t(372) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.38, 2.34], t(372) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.57], t(372) = 0.64, p = 0.525; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.51, 13.09], t(372) = 87.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.32], t(372) = -0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.22], t(372) = -0.78, p = 0.435; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.63], t(372) = 0.39, p = 0.696; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.49 (95% CI [13.87, 15.11], t(372) = 45.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.48], t(372) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [0.16, 1.57], t(372) = 2.42, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.05, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-1.78, 0.22], t(372) = -1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.31 (95% CI [12.56, 14.07], t(372) = 34.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.45], t(372) = 0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [0.13, 1.72], t(372) = 2.29, p = 0.022; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [0.03, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.00], t(372) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.80 (95% CI [26.55, 29.05], t(372) = 43.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.75], t(372) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.80, 95% CI [0.47, 3.13], t(372) = 2.65, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.07, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.99], t(372) = -0.93, p = 0.352; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.00 (95% CI [18.19, 19.81], t(372) = 45.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.66], t(372) = 0.87, p = 0.382; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [0.16, 1.73], t(372) = 2.36, p = 0.018; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [0.04, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.80], t(372) = -0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.96, 14.88], t(372) = 61.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.58], t(372) = -0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.95], t(372) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.27], t(372) = 1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.76 (95% CI [11.20, 12.31], t(372) = 41.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.76], t(372) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -5.44e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.12], t(372) = -1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.37], t(372) = -1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.74, 11.07], t(372) = 30.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.11], t(372) = 0.35, p = 0.725; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.14], t(372) = -1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.27], t(372) = -1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.22 (95% CI [9.54, 10.89], t(372) = 29.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.80], t(372) = -0.31, p = 0.756; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.34, -0.10], t(372) = -2.27, p = 0.023; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.36, -0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.84], t(372) = -0.11, p = 0.914; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.74 (95% CI [8.07, 9.41], t(372) = 25.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.28], t(372) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.06], t(372) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.33], t(372) = -1.22, p = 0.221; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.36 (95% CI [27.47, 31.26], t(372) = 30.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.34, 3.03], t(372) = 0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-3.33, -0.12], t(372) = -2.10, p = 0.035; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.32, -0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-3.48, 1.09], t(372) = -1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,203.328

1,215.133

-598.664

1,197.328

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,204.127

1,227.737

-596.064

1,192.127

5.201

3

0.158

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,827.539

1,839.344

-910.769

1,821.539

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,827.959

1,851.568

-907.979

1,815.959

5.580

3

0.134

ras_confidence

null

3

2,301.581

2,313.386

-1,147.791

2,295.581

ras_confidence

random

6

2,289.334

2,312.943

-1,138.667

2,277.334

18.247

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,576.686

1,588.491

-785.343

1,570.686

ras_willingness

random

6

1,578.819

1,602.428

-783.409

1,566.819

3.867

3

0.276

ras_goal

null

3

1,907.509

1,919.313

-950.754

1,901.509

ras_goal

random

6

1,903.570

1,927.179

-945.785

1,891.570

9.939

3

0.019

ras_reliance

null

3

1,799.357

1,811.162

-896.679

1,793.357

ras_reliance

random

6

1,793.242

1,816.852

-890.621

1,781.242

12.115

3

0.007

ras_domination

null

3

1,698.110

1,709.915

-846.055

1,692.110

ras_domination

random

6

1,692.991

1,716.600

-840.495

1,680.991

11.120

3

0.011

symptom

null

3

2,695.254

2,707.059

-1,344.627

2,689.254

symptom

random

6

2,694.401

2,718.010

-1,341.200

2,682.401

6.854

3

0.077

slof_work

null

3

2,137.012

2,148.817

-1,065.506

2,131.012

slof_work

random

6

2,139.433

2,163.042

-1,063.716

2,127.433

3.580

3

0.311

slof_relationship

null

3

2,306.983

2,318.787

-1,150.491

2,300.983

slof_relationship

random

6

2,309.150

2,332.759

-1,148.575

2,297.150

3.833

3

0.280

satisfaction

null

3

2,474.870

2,486.675

-1,234.435

2,468.870

satisfaction

random

6

2,473.290

2,496.900

-1,230.645

2,461.290

7.580

3

0.056

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,953.245

1,965.050

-973.622

1,947.245

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,956.370

1,979.979

-972.185

1,944.370

2.875

3

0.411

mhc_social

null

3

2,336.626

2,348.431

-1,165.313

2,330.626

mhc_social

random

6

2,339.370

2,362.979

-1,163.685

2,327.370

3.257

3

0.354

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,447.417

2,459.222

-1,220.709

2,441.417

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,448.610

2,472.220

-1,218.305

2,436.610

4.807

3

0.186

resilisnce

null

3

2,131.071

2,142.876

-1,062.536

2,125.071

resilisnce

random

6

2,117.712

2,141.321

-1,052.856

2,105.712

19.359

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

1,786.161

1,797.966

-890.081

1,780.161

social_provision

random

6

1,784.409

1,808.019

-886.205

1,772.409

7.752

3

0.051

els_value_living

null

3

1,871.637

1,883.441

-932.818

1,865.637

els_value_living

random

6

1,869.711

1,893.320

-928.855

1,857.711

7.926

3

0.048

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,887.046

1,898.850

-940.523

1,881.046

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,885.172

1,908.782

-936.586

1,873.172

7.873

3

0.049

els

null

3

2,330.658

2,342.463

-1,162.329

2,324.658

els

random

6

2,326.678

2,350.287

-1,157.339

2,314.678

9.980

3

0.019

social_connect

null

3

2,651.152

2,662.957

-1,322.576

2,645.152

social_connect

random

6

2,638.783

2,662.392

-1,313.391

2,626.783

18.369

3

0.000

shs_agency

null

3

2,185.607

2,197.411

-1,089.803

2,179.607

shs_agency

random

6

2,183.870

2,207.479

-1,085.935

2,171.870

7.737

3

0.052

shs_pathway

null

3

2,054.216

2,066.020

-1,024.108

2,048.216

shs_pathway

random

6

2,048.592

2,072.202

-1,018.296

2,036.592

11.623

3

0.009

shs

null

3

2,603.512

2,615.317

-1,298.756

2,597.512

shs

random

6

2,598.767

2,622.377

-1,293.384

2,586.767

10.745

3

0.013

esteem

null

3

1,401.218

1,413.023

-697.609

1,395.218

esteem

random

6

1,406.487

1,430.096

-697.243

1,394.487

0.732

3

0.866

mlq_search

null

3

1,961.481

1,973.286

-977.740

1,955.481

mlq_search

random

6

1,960.901

1,984.510

-974.450

1,948.901

6.580

3

0.087

mlq_presence

null

3

2,093.529

2,105.334

-1,043.765

2,087.529

mlq_presence

random

6

2,090.327

2,113.936

-1,039.163

2,078.327

9.202

3

0.027

mlq

null

3

2,478.004

2,489.808

-1,236.002

2,472.004

mlq

random

6

2,474.831

2,498.440

-1,231.415

2,462.831

9.173

3

0.027

empower

null

3

2,127.039

2,138.844

-1,060.519

2,121.039

empower

random

6

2,124.628

2,148.237

-1,056.314

2,112.628

8.411

3

0.038

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,749.800

1,761.605

-871.900

1,743.800

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,744.365

1,767.974

-866.182

1,732.365

11.436

3

0.010

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,887.899

1,899.703

-940.949

1,881.899

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,880.853

1,904.463

-934.427

1,868.853

13.045

3

0.005

sss_affective

null

3

1,974.733

1,986.537

-984.366

1,968.733

sss_affective

random

6

1,966.971

1,990.581

-977.486

1,954.971

13.761

3

0.003

sss_behavior

null

3

1,977.608

1,989.413

-985.804

1,971.608

sss_behavior

random

6

1,972.725

1,996.334

-980.362

1,960.725

10.883

3

0.012

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,983.146

1,994.950

-988.573

1,977.146

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,974.215

1,997.824

-981.107

1,962.215

14.931

3

0.002

sss

null

3

2,743.687

2,755.492

-1,368.844

2,737.687

sss

random

6

2,733.307

2,756.916

-1,360.654

2,721.307

16.380

3

0.001

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

119

3.20 ± 1.21

119

3.08 ± 1.21

0.454

0.123

recovery_stage_a

2nd

71

3.25 ± 1.18

-0.053

69

3.43 ± 1.18

-0.359

0.380

-0.183

recovery_stage_b

1st

119

18.01 ± 2.97

119

17.85 ± 2.97

0.679

0.091

recovery_stage_b

2nd

71

17.82 ± 2.71

0.107

69

18.50 ± 2.70

-0.370

0.138

-0.386

ras_confidence

1st

119

29.82 ± 5.70

119

30.13 ± 5.70

0.674

-0.105

ras_confidence

2nd

71

30.46 ± 5.05

-0.218

69

32.10 ± 5.02

-0.666

0.055

-0.553

ras_willingness

1st

119

11.61 ± 2.12

119

11.70 ± 2.12

0.759

-0.065

ras_willingness

2nd

71

11.70 ± 1.95

-0.068

69

12.08 ± 1.94

-0.292

0.253

-0.289

ras_goal

1st

119

17.23 ± 3.33

119

17.58 ± 3.33

0.415

-0.188

ras_goal

2nd

71

17.48 ± 3.01

-0.134

69

18.44 ± 2.99

-0.456

0.060

-0.509

ras_reliance

1st

119

13.16 ± 2.93

119

13.34 ± 2.93

0.643

-0.113

ras_reliance

2nd

71

13.47 ± 2.61

-0.198

69

14.16 ± 2.60

-0.524

0.120

-0.439

ras_domination

1st

119

10.02 ± 2.41

119

9.62 ± 2.41

0.208

0.248

ras_domination

2nd

71

10.06 ± 2.26

-0.027

69

10.48 ± 2.25

-0.540

0.268

-0.265

symptom

1st

119

31.36 ± 9.90

119

30.12 ± 9.90

0.334

0.255

symptom

2nd

71

29.99 ± 8.68

0.282

69

28.74 ± 8.63

0.283

0.394

0.256

slof_work

1st

119

22.27 ± 4.59

119

22.08 ± 4.59

0.746

0.077

slof_work

2nd

71

22.55 ± 4.12

-0.111

69

22.81 ± 4.10

-0.290

0.710

-0.102

slof_relationship

1st

119

24.68 ± 5.74

119

25.48 ± 5.74

0.284

-0.252

slof_relationship

2nd

71

24.61 ± 5.15

0.021

69

26.16 ± 5.13

-0.213

0.077

-0.486

satisfaction

1st

119

19.90 ± 7.23

119

21.08 ± 7.23

0.210

-0.308

satisfaction

2nd

71

20.81 ± 6.43

-0.238

69

22.26 ± 6.39

-0.310

0.182

-0.380

mhc_emotional

1st

119

10.77 ± 3.74

119

10.96 ± 3.74

0.703

-0.101

mhc_emotional

2nd

71

11.20 ± 3.27

-0.233

69

11.22 ± 3.25

-0.145

0.967

-0.013

mhc_social

1st

119

15.34 ± 6.13

119

15.32 ± 6.13

0.975

0.008

mhc_social

2nd

71

16.01 ± 5.41

-0.213

69

15.97 ± 5.38

-0.208

0.967

0.012

mhc_psychological

1st

119

21.84 ± 7.06

119

21.90 ± 7.06

0.949

-0.016

mhc_psychological

2nd

71

22.94 ± 6.24

-0.303

69

22.61 ± 6.21

-0.196

0.756

0.091

resilisnce

1st

119

16.29 ± 4.39

119

17.02 ± 4.39

0.205

-0.284

resilisnce

2nd

71

17.14 ± 3.99

-0.335

69

18.51 ± 3.97

-0.589

0.042

-0.539

social_provision

1st

119

13.24 ± 2.84

119

13.95 ± 2.84

0.056

-0.437

social_provision

2nd

71

13.10 ± 2.57

0.092

69

14.27 ± 2.56

-0.199

0.007

-0.728

els_value_living

1st

119

16.88 ± 3.20

119

17.25 ± 3.20

0.374

-0.208

els_value_living

2nd

71

17.23 ± 2.88

-0.197

69

17.92 ± 2.87

-0.373

0.161

-0.383

els_life_fulfill

1st

119

12.50 ± 3.34

119

13.17 ± 3.34

0.126

-0.383

els_life_fulfill

2nd

71

12.76 ± 2.96

-0.147

69

13.72 ± 2.94

-0.321

0.054

-0.557

els

1st

119

29.39 ± 6.06

119

30.42 ± 6.06

0.189

-0.342

els

2nd

71

30.01 ± 5.33

-0.207

69

31.64 ± 5.30

-0.403

0.071

-0.537

social_connect

1st

119

27.56 ± 9.24

119

26.53 ± 9.24

0.389

0.230

social_connect

2nd

71

27.42 ± 8.08

0.031

69

23.54 ± 8.03

0.667

0.005

0.866

shs_agency

1st

119

13.97 ± 5.07

119

14.92 ± 5.07

0.153

-0.384

shs_agency

2nd

71

14.41 ± 4.43

-0.177

69

15.72 ± 4.40

-0.326

0.081

-0.534

shs_pathway

1st

119

15.43 ± 4.13

119

16.39 ± 4.13

0.075

-0.442

shs_pathway

2nd

71

15.97 ± 3.67

-0.252

69

17.20 ± 3.65

-0.377

0.048

-0.567

shs

1st

119

29.40 ± 8.78

119

31.30 ± 8.78

0.096

-0.448

shs

2nd

71

30.38 ± 7.67

-0.231

69

32.91 ± 7.62

-0.380

0.051

-0.596

esteem

1st

119

12.80 ± 1.60

119

12.71 ± 1.60

0.686

0.070

esteem

2nd

71

12.65 ± 1.54

0.124

69

12.67 ± 1.54

0.036

0.936

-0.018

mlq_search

1st

119

14.49 ± 3.46

119

15.09 ± 3.46

0.178

-0.271

mlq_search

2nd

71

15.36 ± 3.22

-0.389

69

15.18 ± 3.21

-0.041

0.752

0.077

mlq_presence

1st

119

13.31 ± 4.20

119

13.69 ± 4.20

0.488

-0.151

mlq_presence

2nd

71

14.24 ± 3.84

-0.370

69

14.48 ± 3.82

-0.318

0.702

-0.099

mlq

1st

119

27.80 ± 6.96

119

28.78 ± 6.96

0.277

-0.234

mlq

2nd

71

29.59 ± 6.37

-0.428

69

29.68 ± 6.35

-0.213

0.938

-0.020

empower

1st

119

19.00 ± 4.52

119

19.51 ± 4.52

0.382

-0.209

empower

2nd

71

19.94 ± 4.04

-0.384

69

20.14 ± 4.02

-0.257

0.768

-0.082

ismi_resistance

1st

119

14.42 ± 2.55

119

14.35 ± 2.55

0.839

0.038

ismi_resistance

2nd

71

14.82 ± 2.41

-0.226

69

15.23 ± 2.41

-0.500

0.308

-0.236

ismi_discrimation

1st

119

11.76 ± 3.07

119

11.74 ± 3.07

0.966

0.008

ismi_discrimation

2nd

71

11.22 ± 2.89

0.257

69

10.65 ± 2.88

0.525

0.241

0.276

sss_affective

1st

119

10.40 ± 3.69

119

10.57 ± 3.69

0.726

-0.086

sss_affective

2nd

71

9.92 ± 3.29

0.247

69

9.46 ± 3.27

0.564

0.412

0.232

sss_behavior

1st

119

10.22 ± 3.75

119

10.07 ± 3.75

0.756

0.078

sss_behavior

2nd

71

9.50 ± 3.32

0.370

69

9.30 ± 3.30

0.395

0.722

0.103

sss_cognitive

1st

119

8.74 ± 3.75

119

9.07 ± 3.75

0.501

-0.168

sss_cognitive

2nd

71

8.18 ± 3.33

0.287

69

7.95 ± 3.31

0.572

0.686

0.116

sss

1st

119

29.36 ± 10.55

119

29.71 ± 10.55

0.801

-0.069

sss

2nd

71

27.64 ± 9.19

0.345

69

26.79 ± 9.13

0.584

0.584

0.170

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(339.28) = -0.75, p = 0.454, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.19)

2st

t(373.99) = 0.88, p = 0.380, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.57)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(292.32) = -0.41, p = 0.679, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.60)

2st

t(369.12) = 1.49, p = 0.138, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.58)

ras_confidence

1st

t(277.96) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.76)

2st

t(360.22) = 1.92, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.04 to 3.31)

ras_willingness

1st

t(297.12) = 0.31, p = 0.759, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.62)

2st

t(370.71) = 1.14, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.02)

ras_goal

1st

t(286.45) = 0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.20)

2st

t(366.38) = 1.89, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.96)

ras_reliance

1st

t(280.42) = 0.46, p = 0.643, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.92)

2st

t(362.33) = 1.56, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.55)

ras_domination

1st

t(307.24) = -1.26, p = 0.208, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.22)

2st

t(372.74) = 1.11, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.17)

symptom

1st

t(273.29) = -0.97, p = 0.334, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.77 to 1.28)

2st

t(355.31) = -0.85, p = 0.394, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-4.13 to 1.63)

slof_work

1st

t(283.49) = -0.32, p = 0.746, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.98)

2st

t(364.57) = 0.37, p = 0.710, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.62)

slof_relationship

1st

t(284.13) = 1.07, p = 0.284, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.26)

2st

t(364.99) = 1.77, p = 0.077, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.17 to 3.25)

satisfaction

1st

t(279.68) = 1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.02)

2st

t(361.72) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.68 to 3.58)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(272.77) = 0.38, p = 0.703, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.14)

2st

t(354.68) = 0.04, p = 0.967, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.11)

mhc_social

1st

t(276.06) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.54)

2st

t(358.37) = -0.04, p = 0.967, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.83 to 1.75)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(276.75) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.74 to 1.86)

2st

t(359.07) = -0.31, p = 0.756, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.40 to 1.74)

resilisnce

1st

t(289.31) = 1.27, p = 0.205, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.84)

2st

t(367.84) = 2.04, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.69)

social_provision

1st

t(287.43) = 1.92, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.43)

2st

t(366.91) = 2.72, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.32 to 2.03)

els_value_living

1st

t(284.94) = 0.89, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.19)

2st

t(365.50) = 1.41, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.64)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(277.84) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.52)

2st

t(360.10) = 1.93, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.95)

els

1st

t(274.47) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.58)

2st

t(356.67) = 1.81, p = 0.071, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.14 to 3.39)

social_connect

1st

t(272.22) = -0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.39 to 1.32)

2st

t(353.99) = -2.85, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-6.56 to -1.21)

shs_agency

1st

t(271.87) = 1.43, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.23)

2st

t(353.55) = 1.75, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.78)

shs_pathway

1st

t(279.08) = 1.79, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.10 to 2.01)

2st

t(361.21) = 1.99, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.45)

shs

1st

t(271.83) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.14)

2st

t(353.50) = 1.96, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.01 to 5.07)

esteem

1st

t(328.21) = -0.40, p = 0.686, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.32)

2st

t(373.96) = 0.08, p = 0.936, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.53)

mlq_search

1st

t(304.08) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.49)

2st

t(372.26) = -0.32, p = 0.752, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.90)

mlq_presence

1st

t(292.71) = 0.69, p = 0.488, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.45)

2st

t(369.27) = 0.38, p = 0.702, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.52)

mlq

1st

t(294.66) = 1.09, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.76)

2st

t(369.96) = 0.08, p = 0.938, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.03 to 2.20)

empower

1st

t(282.30) = 0.87, p = 0.382, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.67)

2st

t(363.75) = 0.29, p = 0.768, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.54)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(314.35) = -0.20, p = 0.839, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.58)

2st

t(373.45) = 1.02, p = 0.308, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.22)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(311.08) = -0.04, p = 0.966, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.77)

2st

t(373.18) = -1.17, p = 0.241, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.39)

sss_affective

1st

t(280.32) = 0.35, p = 0.726, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.11)

2st

t(362.24) = -0.82, p = 0.412, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.64)

sss_behavior

1st

t(277.59) = -0.31, p = 0.756, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.81)

2st

t(359.87) = -0.36, p = 0.722, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.30 to 0.90)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(278.16) = 0.67, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.29)

2st

t(360.40) = -0.41, p = 0.686, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.88)

sss

1st

t(270.33) = 0.25, p = 0.801, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.35 to 3.04)

2st

t(351.48) = -0.55, p = 0.584, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.89 to 2.20)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(183.30) = 2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.04 to 0.64)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(161.47) = 2.25, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.22)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(155.43) = 4.03, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (1.00 to 2.94)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(163.53) = 1.79, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.80)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(158.99) = 2.77, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.47)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(156.46) = 3.17, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.33)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(167.94) = 3.32, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.37)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(153.49) = -1.70, p = 0.181, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.98 to 0.22)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(157.75) = 1.76, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.55)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(158.02) = 1.29, p = 0.395, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.71)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(156.15) = 1.87, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.43)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(153.28) = 0.87, p = 0.769, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.86)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(154.64) = 1.26, p = 0.421, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.67)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(154.93) = 1.18, p = 0.476, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.89)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(160.20) = 3.58, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.67 to 2.32)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(159.40) = 1.21, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.85)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(158.35) = 2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.24)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(155.38) = 1.94, p = 0.109, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.12)

els

1st vs 2st

t(153.98) = 2.43, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.21)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(153.05) = -4.02, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-4.46 to -1.52)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(152.90) = 1.96, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.60)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(155.90) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.53)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(152.88) = 2.28, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.22 to 3.00)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(177.64) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.34)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(166.55) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.81)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(161.64) = 1.94, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.61)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(162.47) = 1.30, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.26)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(157.25) = 1.56, p = 0.242, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.43)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(171.12) = 3.09, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.32 to 1.44)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(169.65) = -3.24, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-1.76 to -0.42)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(156.42) = -3.41, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.47)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(155.28) = -2.39, p = 0.036, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.40 to -0.13)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(155.52) = -3.45, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.48)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(152.26) = -3.51, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-4.56 to -1.27)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(181.33) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.35)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(160.48) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.38)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(154.70) = 1.33, p = 0.368, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.60)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(162.44) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.50)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(158.10) = 0.82, p = 0.823, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.86)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(155.68) = 1.21, p = 0.453, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.81)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(166.65) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.55)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(152.84) = -1.72, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.95 to 0.20)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(156.91) = 0.68, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.09)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(157.17) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.95)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(155.39) = 1.46, p = 0.294, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(152.64) = 1.42, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.02)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(153.95) = 1.30, p = 0.392, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.67)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(154.22) = 1.85, p = 0.131, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.07 to 2.27)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(159.25) = 2.06, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.66)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(158.50) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.37)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(157.50) = 1.21, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.92)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(154.65) = 0.90, p = 0.742, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.81)

els

1st vs 2st

t(153.31) = 1.26, p = 0.417, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.60)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(152.42) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.31)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(152.28) = 1.08, p = 0.567, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.23)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(155.15) = 1.54, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.25)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(152.26) = 1.41, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.36)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(175.93) = -0.78, p = 0.873, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.23)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(165.33) = 2.42, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.58)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(160.64) = 2.29, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.73)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(161.43) = 2.64, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.45 to 3.14)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(156.44) = 2.36, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.73)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(169.70) = 1.41, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.16 to 0.95)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(168.29) = -1.61, p = 0.221, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.12)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(155.64) = -1.51, p = 0.265, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.15)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(154.55) = -2.27, p = 0.050, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.34 to -0.09)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(154.78) = -1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.07)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(151.67) = -2.10, p = 0.075, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-3.35 to -0.10)

Plot

Clinical significance